Donate SIGN UP
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 40 of 50rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last

Avatar Image
It's strange that the invasion by the Moors of southern Europe is somehow seen as beneficial because of the developments they are said to have bestowed upon the area. The British did likewise across large swathes of the world, bringing unimaginable order and development to places in Asia and Africa. By contrast, today's British people are expected to feel...
20:16 Wed 15th Aug 2018
Aog , get your own house in order first. OK,
“Read my article link. There seems to be an assumption that the Spanish are up in arms about this, which the article clearly refutes and goes further in saying that the xenophobia needs to stop.”

Yes I did, and thanks for it, Zacs. But the article doesn’t actually say what the Spanish people think of visitors to their tourist beaches witnessing rubber boats disgorging African men on to their shores. It only says what Spanish politicians believe their electorate think. As I said earlier, most politicians in Europe see no problem with mass illegal immigration. That’s probably because few of them live in or near the ghettos that have been set up in many countries, few of them are troubled with the many problems that uncontrolled migration brings.

In fact, the closest I can see to the views of the people being expressed is from Miguel Molina, mayor of the town of Barbate. He suggests that his constituents are “…as ever, showing their solidarity with these people who’ve made long journeys, some of which have lasted years.” There’s no real evidence to support his claim. But there’s plenty of stirrings from the Right Wing parties who see immigration as a problem and an opportunity for them to gain votes. If the leaders continue to brush the issue aside by dismissing genuine fears of their population they cannot be surprised if they vote for people who say they will address those fears.
NJ, are you not counting José Villahoz as a Spanish person, or Josep Borrell, or Carmen González Enríquez?
AOG, If you did a little research you'd appreciate what the Moors brought to Spain. They actually turned a rather backwards inefficient farming based country into one of culture and Art, efficient agricultural practices, great architecture and learning.

http://blackhistorystudies.com/resources/resources/15-facts-on-the-moors-in-spain/
I was just about to ask AOG if he thought the Moors legacy was a plus for modern-day Spain, and which invasions he thought were a plus for Britain.
Zacs, but all of that said, the Spanish did eventually kick them out - and you can rest assured that the new influx won’t be bringing similar benefits with them.
It's strange that the invasion by the Moors of southern Europe is somehow seen as beneficial because of the developments they are said to have bestowed upon the area. The British did likewise across large swathes of the world, bringing unimaginable order and development to places in Asia and Africa. By contrast, today's British people are expected to feel guilty about that for the rest of their lives.
Was it all altruistic?
I suspect it takes a few hundred years before a nation accepts that an influx of foreigners might just have been a good thing.
7 centuries they were there for. To dress up the benefits the Moors brought to Spain as anything but an advancement takes a special kind of twisted logic. But that’s nothing new on here.
Zacs, it takes a special kind of twisted logic to conclude that a present day invasion will be beneficial. The world has moved on…. well, the modern world at least. History is history. We live in the here and now.
Now will soon be history, and to imagine that you can preserve a country as it is now when you know it has constantly changed is a bit daft at best.
So what happened in the relatively few years that the British colonised many parts of Africa and Asia? Did they bring any "advancement" or did the British simply plunder the natural resources as much as they could until they were finally thrown out?

You see I'm confused. Seven or eight centuries of what many regard as an unwelcome occupation which was eventually ended by force is said to have seen great advancement. Whereas any advancement which may have followed from a couple of centuries or so of largely mutually agreeable occupation which, in the main, was ended by treaty is somewhat glossed over and those who provided it are vilified.
Garaman, //Now will soon be history//

Never a truer word...

Watch ... and weep.
// did the British simply plunder the natural resources as much as they could until they were finally thrown out? //

it depends who you ask.

The only people who say it was better when the Brits were there are - - - the Egyptians -who are very conscious that they went from the arab nation with the best standard of living in 1956 to the worst ..... by 1976.
Nasser also wasnt corrupt but jesus his pals in the Young Officers were the first at the tills

and possibly Zim - but you have barrel of a rifle issues there
// History is history. //
o god I just love the deep thinkers on AB

I prefer: History is bunk ( Hy Ford) - may rely on - dont do old industrial practices - bring in new one

History is history is history ( Gertrude Stein almost - crazy lady, crazy thoughts)

History is written by the victors ( Goebbels no less - but it is a common German saw and G might have recycled it )

History is rewritten in every generation ( = History is a social construct ) and here we are - industriously rewriting history - the bits we dont like....
Heracleitus famously said "panta rhei", commonly translated from the original Greek as "all is flux". That's two and a half thousand years ago.

For those insufficiently attentive to the facts of life it's good to be reminded of Heracleitus' concise statement of the obvious by its more verbose rendition (and thanks to you, Garaman):

"Now will soon be history, and to imagine that you can preserve a country as it is now when you know it has constantly changed is a bit daft at best."

(Pedant around to talk ontology? Oops, I see he's already popped up talking about Gertude Stein and the British cultural legacy. Foo dat den Ilkley Moor bar t'at)

The point of all this, of course, is to point out that change (which is inevitable[i) can, when it it not in its social and moral consequences neutral, come in two forms. One is improvement and one is deterioration. The proper object of political science is surely to encourage the former and prevent - as far as possible, and that [i]may] not that much - the latter.

Does this make any kind of sense to you, Garaman?

It makes perfect sense to me, VE. My point, which I am sure you could grasp if you wanted, is that time is the best judge of whether or not change was for the better. More often than not those who suffer the change won’t like it, particular the older members. Personally, like others, I tend to think all this immigration is a bad thing, but we won’t really know for a few hundred years going off previous large immigrations/invasions.

As you suggest, it looks like a step backwards, but who’s to say that we weren’t heading in the wrong direction? I can’t say I am too impressed with the values of our modern society; try checking if, as you say, Heraclitus’ aphorism is well-known amongst the shoppers:)
NJ, the Moors invasion of Spain and our Imperialist invasions don’t compare. We didn’t stay 7 centuries and completely integrate ourselves for a start. One of the surprising things was the inter-faith system which they had:
https://irstudies.org/articles/best-practices-non-profit-articles/al-andalus-a-case-study-in-inter-religious-tolerance-by-joshua-stanton/
Peter Pedant, you say so much …. and yet, so very little. And you a deep thinker too. Another normal day on AB.

Garaman, //I can’t say I am too impressed with the values of our modern society //

Are you more impressed with the values of the newcomers, and if so, in pursuit of your experiment and the unknown legacy you’re willing to impose upon our descendants, what are you willing to abandon so recklessly to those dubious values? Our culture, our history, our freedoms? What?

Zacs, //We didn’t …. completely integrate ourselves for a start.//

Neither did they. Islam doesn’t integrate …. anywhere. I can’t think of a single instance where Muslim incomers have abandoned Islam and adopted the culture/religion of the indigenous population.

Love the comment from Marinus at the end of your link:

//If the Moors in Medieval times could do it, my belief in the dynamism in human nature convinces me that we of our age can top their achievement, if we earnestly work on ourselves.//

He may work on himself all he likes but it doesn’t follow that Islam will work on itself. It won’t. Another useful idiot oblivious to the intentions of a determined political animal.

21 to 40 of 50rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

This Is Spain Since Pedro Sánchez’S Socialist Party Came To Power In June.

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.